Replies

>Idiot? My God, buddy---where the hell do you get off calling me an idiot? What the hell did I ever do to you? The rest of your post indicates you have no clue whatsoever about the history of journalism in the United States, and are more interested in spewing personal attacks and your own retarded, uniformed filth than discussing the real issue at hand. What an ignorant clown you are.

LOL!

How does it feel?! Now you know exactly how most of America feels when journalists "...are more interested in spewing personal attacks and your own retarded, uniformed filth than discussing the real issue at hand."

Real issue at hand?! My. That would take an objective assessment of the situation. But _you_ don't believe objective assessments exist, and _you_ believe they would be _bad_ things if they did...

Thank you, contemporary stupid young person. This exchange is the first thing that's made me smile in a long time. Have a good career. Mark W.

Real issue at hand?! My. That would take an objective assessment of the situation. But _you_ don't believe objective assessments exist, and _you_ believe they would be _bad_ things if they did...

Listen, pal: an objective assessment of the situation would require you to know one thing about the history of journalism in order to discuss it with any sort of authenticity. Even the most jack-booted-thug of an opinionated journalist has "facts" to back up his case. You have none, not a scrap: discussing journalism with you is like trying to discuss World War II with a dimwit who thinks the Navy shoud've used jet planes to fend off the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
You yearn for the "good ol' days" when journalists were trained as "objective" observers. You may as well yearn for the good ol' days when money grew on trees and was free for the picking, you idiot.
William Randolph Hearst was not objective. Neither was Horace Greely. Neither was William Lloyd Garrison. Neither was Alfred Ochs. Neither was Isaiah Thomas. Neither was Joseph Pulitzer. Neither were the Taylors. But I don't expect you to recognize any of these names: these are the men behind American journalism. If you knew one shred about American journalism history, you'd know this.
American journalism was founded and fueled by men who passionately promoted their particular agenda. Papers that tried to be "objective," like the Boston Transcript, folded because they had no readers. They had no readers because they were boring. They were boring because their stories had no angle, no slant. You cannot be a human being---even a "highly trained journalist" in your goofy jargon---and approach a story without a slant. It is patently impossible. I could prove it to you if you'd like, but it'd take a million years to prove it to a person as friggen dense as you.

Thank you, contemporary stupid young person. This exchange is the first thing that's made me smile in a long time. Have a good career.

"Stupid young person." That is the sum total of your argument. How proud your mamma must be.
I've been on Free Republic for going on 5 years now, and I've never been tempted to hit the abuse button before now. You are the biggest jackass I've ever encountered on Free Republic. You are all wind, all bluster. I've never encountered a poster more ignorant on the subject he or she was pontificating about. What a douche.